On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 10:20:18AM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 09:04:06PM -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > >> We might be saying the same thing using different languages. > >> > >> I was the %r/%R markers are ways of implementing the IL language > >> I suggested in that message. So, as such I do not object to it. > >> Having an explicit call makes the FE makes a "colorful" formatting > >> decision way too early -- a FE shouldn't be concerned about color matters. > >> That decision should be left to the device doing the formatting. > >> Separation > >> of concerns here isn't just taste; it is good engineering practice. > > > > But the decision is left to the device doing the formatting. > > The %r/%R only says, this text in between is of this kind (locus, quote > > (well, that is automatically done by the patch also for %</%> and %qs etc.), > > etc.), and we either color that using GCC_COLORS (or default) defined color > > if requested through command line option and terminal supports it, or we > > don't. > > We are in violent agreement. I was explaining my take on %r/%R to Manuel.
So are you ok with the posted patch as is (note, the default is never there), or would you like me to introduce %U (in addition or instead of %r/%R), something else? Jason acked it if nobody else has comments http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-04/msg00536.html but there were some, thus I'm looking for additional ack or review comments ;) Jakub
